The definition of insanity

Let's put a stop to government by amendment

MAC THROWER

Published: Sunday, October 7, 2012 at 5:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Monday, October 8, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.

Just about everyone has heard the definition of insanity: doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results. I propose to expand that definition to include the following: amending the Florida Constitution, over and over, and expecting to have good government as a result.

Florida voters will soon be confronted with a mega-ballot that could be mistaken for an IRS booklet explaining the U.S. tax code. Thousands of words are devoted to 11 constitutional amendments. Just one referendum question runs 640 words.

Eleven constitutional amendments. Think about that. The United States Constitution, the master plan of liberty, has been amended 27 times since 1789.

This is a big year for amendment questions — the biggest since 1998, anyway — when 13 amendments were on the ballot.

Since 1978, Florida voters have been asked to decide on an average of about seven constitutional amendments every general election year, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Even with all amendments on the ballot this year, I'd like to see one more added: an amendment to make it much harder to amend the state constitution. At the very least, we should have an amendment barring legislators from putting amendments on the ballot. All 11 amendments on this year's ballot came from Tallahassee.

Some scholars regard the U.S. Constitution as a "living document." Florida's constitution is alive, all right — like kudzu.

It keeps growing and growing, wrapping its tendrils around issues that have little or nothing to do with fundamental liberties or the structure of government.

Let's look at some "constitutional" questions in Florida. And let's think about whether they really are matters that should be included in the state's blueprint for government.

A lot of Americans think school class size is an important education policy issue. But is class size a constitutional issue?

In Florida, it is.

Voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting class sizes in 2002. With school districts all over the state struggling to comply with this constitutional mandate, legislators asked voters to amend that amendment in 2010. This amendment failed.

Class size is an important education policy issue, and state lawmakers and local school board members should debate it and decide whether it's wise to invest public money in reducing student-teacher ratios.

That's why we elect these people, right?

To have them decide on policy and tax questions and other matters not related to basic rights or the organization of government.

These are our representatives — we vote them in and we can vote them out. But we shouldn't make the decisions for them.

The class-size amendment has had terrible consequences. Financial penalties are imposed on school districts that don't maintain the required student-teacher ratios.

In the fall of 2011, the Volusia and Flagler school districts had to scramble — hiring additional full-time teachers, at a substantial cost to taxpayers — to keep class sizes in line.

This is crazy. We shouldn't run our schools by constitutional amendment. But that's what we do in Florida, because of misguided devotion to the fundamentally flawed concept of "direct democracy."

Speaking of crazy: look at our property tax system in Florida. It's insanely complicated, in large part because it gets changed by constitutional amendment every other year.

In 2008 and 2010, a total of four amendments related to property taxes were approved by voters. The 2012 ballotpalooza has five property-tax amendments.

Does anyone in Florida comprehend all the implications of the property-tax changes enacted in just the past six years?

Fundamental tax reform may be a legitimate constitutional concern. But the constitution doesn't need to be changed to cover every proposed property tax exemption. Florida's approach is a recipe for taxpayer confusion — and anger.

I'm not going to offer an opinion on the merits of the amendments on the 2012 ballot. But I will say that, with a couple of exceptions, they are not constitutional concerns.

The republican form of government created by the Founding Fathers has many weaknesses, but it's better than the cockeyed form of direct democracy Florida has created.

I demand the opportunity to vote "no" on government by amendment. I hope someone will put that on the ballot in 2014.

:Mac Thrower is the opinion-page editor of The News-Journal. Email him at mac.thrower@news-jrnl.com.

<p>Just about everyone has heard the definition of insanity: doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results. I propose to expand that definition to include the following: amending the Florida Constitution, over and over, and expecting to have good government as a result. </p><p>Florida voters will soon be confronted with a mega-ballot that could be mistaken for an IRS booklet explaining the U.S. tax code. Thousands of words are devoted to 11 constitutional amendments. Just one referendum question runs 640 words. </p><p>Eleven constitutional amendments. Think about that. The United States Constitution, the master plan of liberty, has been amended 27 times since 1789. </p><p>This is a big year for amendment questions &mdash; the biggest since 1998, anyway &mdash; when 13 amendments were on the ballot. </p><p>Since 1978, Florida voters have been asked to decide on an average of about seven constitutional amendments every general election year, according to the Orlando Sentinel. </p><p>Even with all amendments on the ballot this year, I'd like to see one more added: an amendment to make it much harder to amend the state constitution. At the very least, we should have an amendment barring legislators from putting amendments on the ballot. All 11 amendments on this year's ballot came from Tallahassee. </p><p>Some scholars regard the U.S. Constitution as a "living document." Florida's constitution is alive, all right &mdash; like kudzu. </p><p>It keeps growing and growing, wrapping its tendrils around issues that have little or nothing to do with fundamental liberties or the structure of government. </p><p>Let's look at some "constitutional" questions in Florida. And let's think about whether they really are matters that should be included in the state's blueprint for government. </p><p>A lot of Americans think school class size is an important education policy issue. But is class size a constitutional issue? </p><p>In Florida, it is. </p><p>Voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting class sizes in 2002. With school districts all over the state struggling to comply with this constitutional mandate, legislators asked voters to amend that amendment in 2010. This amendment failed. </p><p>Class size is an important education policy issue, and state lawmakers and local school board members should debate it and decide whether it's wise to invest public money in reducing student-teacher ratios. </p><p>That's why we elect these people, right? </p><p>To have them decide on policy and tax questions and other matters not related to basic rights or the organization of government. </p><p>These are our representatives &mdash; we vote them in and we can vote them out. But we shouldn't make the decisions for them. </p><p>The class-size amendment has had terrible consequences. Financial penalties are imposed on school districts that don't maintain the required student-teacher ratios. </p><p>In the fall of 2011, the Volusia and Flagler school districts had to scramble &mdash; hiring additional full-time teachers, at a substantial cost to taxpayers &mdash; to keep class sizes in line. </p><p>This is crazy. We shouldn't run our schools by constitutional amendment. But that's what we do in Florida, because of misguided devotion to the fundamentally flawed concept of "direct democracy." </p><p>Speaking of crazy: look at our property tax system in Florida. It's insanely complicated, in large part because it gets changed by constitutional amendment every other year. </p><p>In 2008 and 2010, a total of four amendments related to property taxes were approved by voters. The 2012 ballotpalooza has five property-tax amendments. </p><p>Does anyone in Florida comprehend all the implications of the property-tax changes enacted in just the past six years? </p><p>Fundamental tax reform may be a legitimate constitutional concern. But the constitution doesn't need to be changed to cover every proposed property tax exemption. Florida's approach is a recipe for taxpayer confusion &mdash; and anger. </p><p>I'm not going to offer an opinion on the merits of the amendments on the 2012 ballot. But I will say that, with a couple of exceptions, they are not constitutional concerns. </p><p>The republican form of government created by the Founding Fathers has many weaknesses, but it's better than the cockeyed form of direct democracy Florida has created. </p><p>I demand the opportunity to vote "no" on government by amendment. I hope someone will put that on the ballot in 2014.</p><p><i>:Mac Thrower is the opinion-page editor of The News-Journal. Email him at mac.thrower@news-jrnl.com.</p>